Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

The 'channels' are just one miniscule data stream per transponder ~ 1 Kbps.

Well Sixto previously added the LNB test channels on D10 and D11, so I just suggested in that case he may as well go on and add the missing two on D12 for 103A odd and even as well.

And while I agree its a minor point as I stated P. Smith, I don't think its fair to say there's "no point" at all, unless your saying Sixto shouldn't have bothered to list any of the test channels to begin with.

[IMO] I strongly opposed to count the services with short string test message as a channel, especially in tables of counting real channels[/IMO]

Hear ya P. When I originally added them it was because they were full time and I figured that it might be a good thing to show how they do the LNB check. I could go either way, but will leave them for now, but opinion understood.

I'd like your way of thinking ... really, there are many other bitstreams on each transponder: system tables, APG, MPG (yes, old, legacy stream is there, for old 'ancient' IRDs like Sony), authorizations, LiLs info, etc

I'd like your way of thinking ... really, there are many other bitstreams on each transponder: system tables, APG, MPG (yes, old, legacy stream is there, for old 'ancient' IRDs like Sony), authorizations, LiLs info, etc

Been giving this more thought, you've convinced me, removed the LNB tester channels, it probably would confuse more then it would help, especially since I don't list the part-time channels. Have made note in the legend.

Just wondering if people prefer it sorted in channel number (lowest to highest) for each transponder like it is now, or if they'd prefer it sorted by program id (lowest to highest) so at a glance you could see which TP's have 6 HD's or 5 HD's on them by the presence of 1060 or 1050 as the bottom line item?

When I mapped cable QAM I always did it in Frequency , PID order lowest to highest.. (small example from my cable operator)

Just wondering if people prefer it sorted in channel number (lowest to highest) for each transponder like it is now, or if they'd prefer it sorted by program id (lowest to highest) so at a glance you could see which TP's have 6 HD's or 5 HD's on them by the presence of 1060 or 1050 as the bottom line item?...

Yep, good question, I've listed them both ways over the years. By VPID would actually make it easier to keep the table maintained, because every time something changes I need to resort the table. Will see what others think.

Yep, good question, I've listed them both ways over the years. By VPID would actually make it easier to keep the table maintained, because every time something changes I need to resort the table. Will see what others think.

Well I'll start with my opinion.

I prefer PID because at a glance you can see the numbers without counting each line to determine how loaded a transponder is.

The channels are distributed amongst transponders and satellites in a random fashion anyway so even if I am looking for a particular channel I do a CTRL+F and search by name or number in my browser.

I'm in favor of gong by VPID if it will make things easier for you. I don't know how much work your reports take and such, but considering all you, gct, Doctor J and everyone else does for our benefit, I'm all for making it less labor intensive.

I'm in favor of gong by VPID if it will make things easier for you. I don't know how much work your reports take and such, but considering all you, gct, Doctor J and everyone else does for our benefit, I'm all for making it less labor intensive.

Everything is automated except that table, which I guess I could automate as well. Right now that table is manual, and I need to change it all around every time a channel changes, will think this through.

I suppose they really had to go to an 8-PSK modulation level to achieve something close (~37 mb/s) to the typical ~39 mb/s data rate for Ka band CONUS HD programs mentioned earlier in this thread.

With a 24 Mhz wide transponder on Ku band, they only had the SD standard SR of 20,000 KiloSym./sec. to work with instead of the normal 30,000 KS/sec. on Ka band for HD afforded to them by the larger 36 Mhz wide transponders employed there.

My download this AM shows 9702 as a NET 15 listing but "Redirected" from NET 10.NET 10 is 99c (D-11)NET 15 is 103ca/cb (D-10/12)I don't know how or why this is, it just is.D-12 TPN 10 is the 2nd Conus Transponder and would correlate with TPN #2 listed for others.The PIDs are sequential 1010,1020,1030,1040??